Client acquitted of failing to identify the driver.

Case study summary

Our client was also accused of failure to identify the driver. He received the notice of intended prosecution within the fourteen-day stipulated period for driving his motor vehicle at a speed exceeding thirty miles per hour.

Case study

Our client was also accused of failure to identify the driver. He received the notice of intended prosecution within the fourteen-day required period for driving his motor vehicle at a speed exceeding thirty miles per hour.

He provided all his contact details in an email to the camera unit requesting the material and in the same emails identifying the fact that he was confident that he was not travelling at an excess speed. Our client received a number of replies to his electronic communications confirming that the speed measuring device was completely accurate and that as he had failed to respond to the NIP within the time period in the prescribed manner, he was guilty of an offence under section 172 of failing to provide details as to the identity of the driver.

He was summoned to attend court and at that point, he instructed us to take on his case. After conducting thorough investigations into our client's case and two court appearances where we appointed specialist counsel to represent our client, two days before trial we received notification from the Crown Prosecution Service to confirm that they had withdrawn all charges against our client.  Result: Not Guilty Court made an order for our client's legal fees to be paid from court funds.